Home | About | Sematext search-lucene.com search-hadoop.com
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB
 Search Hadoop and all its subprojects:

Switch to Threaded View
Kafka >> mail # dev >> Client improvement discussion


Copy link to this message
-
Re: Client improvement discussion
Jay,

This seems like a great direction.  Simplifying the consumer client would
be a big win, and +1 for more native java client integration.

On the last point, regarding memory usage for buffering per partition.  I
would think it could be possible to devise a dynamic queuing system, to
allow higher volume partitions to have larger effective buffers than
smaller, low-volume partitions.  Thus, if you reserve a fixed
total.buffer.memory, you could allocate units of buffer space which could
then be composed to make larger buffers (perhaps not necessarily
contiguous).  The long-tail of low-volume partitions could also be moved to
some sort of auxiliary, non-collated buffer space, as they are less likely
to benefit from contiguous buffering anyway.

Fun stuff.

Jason

Jason
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jay Kreps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I sent around a wiki a few weeks back proposing a set of client
> improvements that essentially amount to a rewrite of the producer and
> consumer java clients.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/Client+Rewrite
>
> The below discussion assumes you have read this wiki.
>
> I started to do a little prototyping for the producer and wanted to share
> some of the ideas that came up to get early feedback.
>
> First, a few simple but perhaps controversial things to discuss.
>
> Rollout
> Phase 1: We add the new clients. No change on the server. Old clients still
> exist. The new clients will be entirely in a new package so there will be
> no possibility of name collision.
> Phase 2: We swap out all shared code on the server to use the new client
> stuff. At this point the old clients still exist but are essentially
> deprecated.
> Phase 3: We remove the old client code.
>
> Java
> I think we should do the clients in java. Making our users deal with
> scala's non-compatability issues and crazy stack traces causes people a lot
> of pain. Furthermore we end up having to wrap everything now to get a
> usable java api anyway for non-scala people. This does mean maintaining a
> substantial chunk of java code, which is maybe less fun than scala. But
> basically i think we should optimize for the end user and produce a
> standalone pure-java jar with no dependencies.
>
> Jars
> We definitely want to separate out the client jar. There is also a fair
> amount of code shared between both (exceptions, protocol definition, utils,
> and the message set implementation). Two approaches.
> Two jar approach: split kafka.jar into kafka-clients.jar and
> kafka-server.jar with the server depending on the clients. The advantage of
> this is that it is simple. The disadvantage is that things like utils and
> protocol definition will be in the client jar though technical they belong
> equally to the server.
> Many jar approach: split kafka.jar into kafka-common.jar,
> kafka-producer.jar, kafka-consumer.jar, kafka-admin.jar, and
> kafka-server.jar. The disadvantage of this is that the user needs two jars
> (common + something) which is for sure going to confuse people. I also
> think this will tend to spawn more jars over time.
>
> Background threads
> I am thinking of moving both serialization and compression out of the
> background send thread. I will explain a little about this idea below.
>
> Serialization
> I am not sure if we should handle serialization in the client at all.
> Basically I wonder if our own API wouldn't just be a lot simpler if we took
> a byte[] key and byte[] value and let people serialize stuff themselves.
> Injecting a class name for us to create the serializer is more roundabout
> and has a lot of problems if the serializer itself requires a lot of
> configuration or other objects to be instantiated.
>
> Partitioning
> The real question with serialization is whether the partitioning should
> happen on the java object or on the byte array key. The argument for doing
> it on the java object is that it is easier to do something like a range
> partition on the object. The problem with doing it on the object is that

 
NEW: Monitor These Apps!
elasticsearch, apache solr, apache hbase, hadoop, redis, casssandra, amazon cloudwatch, mysql, memcached, apache kafka, apache zookeeper, apache storm, ubuntu, centOS, red hat, debian, puppet labs, java, senseiDB